K03.9 K03.0
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Observational follow-up clinical study in which posterior composite restorations placed with Herculite XRV in the student course of the dental clinic of the University Hospital Frankfurt am M
single-surface vs. multi-surface filling
Sponsors
Goethe University Frankfurt,University Hospital,Department of Operative Dentistry,Dental School (Carolinum)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Application of the posterior composite restoration happened in the 1995/1996 student courses of the Department of Operative Dentistry of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. All fillings were inserted in permanent vital teeth without pain symptoms at the time of placement. 3. A microhybrid composite was used for the restorations (Herculite XRV, Kerr, Karlsruhe, Germany). 4. The application followed a predefined clinical protocol. 5. All patients were at the age of 18-70 years at time of placement. 6. All patients had been consecutively evaluated at the first follow-up examination during 1995-1997 within 36 months after insertion of fillings.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Application of the posterior composite restoration did not happen in the 1995/1996 student courses of the Department of Operative Dentistry of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. The fillings were not inserted in permanent vital teeth without pain symptoms at the time of placement. 3. A microhybrid composite was not used for the restorations (Herculite XRV, Kerr, Karlsruhe, Germany). 4. The application followed not a predefined clinical protocol. 5. All patients were not at the age of 18-70 years at time of placement. 6. All patients had not been consecutively evaluated at the first follow-up examination during 1995-1997 within 36 months after insertion of fillings.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Resin composite posterior restorations placed between 1995-1996 in the student course of the dental clinic of the Goethe University Frankfurt according to a predefined protocol were followed up and evaluated at two different time points. The first follow-up and evaluation of the resin composite restorations took place between 1995-1997 (6, 12, 18, 24 or 36 months after filling placement) by another study group. The second follow-up and evaluation of the resin posterior restorations took place in 2019 (over 23 years after initial filling placement) in this study using seven selected FDI criteria. The fillings were evaluated according to the following seven FDI criteria: 1) Surface luster 2) Aesthetic anatomical form 3) Fracture of material and retention 4) Marginal adaptation 5) Occlusal contour and wear 6) Approximal anatomical form 7) Tooth integrity Each criterion scored one grade according to a six-point grading scale common to both follow-up examinations: - 1 - Clinically excellent / very good - 2 - Clinically good (after correction clinically very good; no treatment necessary) - 3 - Clinically adequate / satisfactory (minor defects; no unacceptable defects, but cannot be adjusted without damaging the tooth) - 4 - Clinically unsatisfactory (but repairable) - 5 - Clinically unsatisfactory (replacement necessary) - 6 - Restoration or tooth missing The aim of the study was to directly compare the scores achieved in each FDI criterion between the first and second follow-up. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| In addition, each restoration evaluated in the first and second follow-up was classified according to the World Health Organization ISO 3950 notation: Premolar or molar, maxillary or mandibular, single-surface filling or multi-surface filling. The groups formed accordingly were also compared with each other in their results on the respective seven FDI criteria. | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactMarie von Gehren
Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School (Carolinum)
Outcome results
None listed